but how would the board do this? san francisco's charter guided -- offered little guidance. >> although it was obvious we would appoint an interim mayor, there was no time line for the two to occur. we looked to outside counsel for answers. they researched those questions. while they researched the legal angle, we began the research on the parliamentary level. at the beginning of the calendar year 2010, we started to craft a generic process for a successor for mayor. being a parliamentarian of the board, i have been working on the process itself. i have been working with two one and parliamentarians in the city. we did some role-playing and tried to contemplate all of the different variables that the board would encounter in appointing a successor mayor. >> the first time i became aware of the process as when my editor and myself asked us how the process would work. we quickly became tongue tied and did not have an answer. you went to the clerk of the board of supervisors to ask, the difference supervisors, the city a

johnson is here representing the board of health. if you can go over the guidelines and conduct the swearing-in process. >> the board requests you turn off all funds, beepers, and pages of that will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentations are as follows. each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven - oare-minute period. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions or requesting a rehearing or rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff after the break or aft

the board has been put into a difficult situation. there are a lot of differences of opinion on how to run the city, how to mass make a decision, who should be in place, 11 people to agree on that is a challenging thing. i think we have done the best we can do in the process, considering the difference of opinions. >> the people of san francisco can now choose their mayor, the direction they want to go. that is why this decision was so appropriate. >> the other big shock is that the moderates seem to have won this round. people thought, progressives have themselves on the board. there is no reason that they will not get together and take a noted leader who is a progressive to be interim mayor, and then stayed there for another term. the great thing about being in term mayor is to get to run as an incumbent. the fact that the progressives could not get together to get somebody into office as interim mayor in their own self-interest was very surprising for a lot of us. >> what happened in the last month in city hall was an incredible sho

therefore, the board committee cannot taken action to for the item to the board with a recommendation. that would constitute either taking an action or considering the taking of an action. we try to make that clear at the beginning of a hearing that what you are doing and the way the board process is set up is we conduct our public hearings through board committees, generally. when we do have an eir appeal pending, we allow those hearings to continue with the right notification that we are following through with the hearing process but the committee is not considering any action, which would be to forward it to the board with recommendation. the advice is if the committee wants to bring it before the full board, which is where the action would be taken to approve an item, that what the committee should do if they want to procedurally bring it before the full board is to pass it on without recommendation. that is appropriate under the terms of chapter 31. supervisor mar: i am reading subsection 8.3. it says that while the appeal is pending the city shall not carry out -- we did not car

that was appealed to the board of appeals heard last night. many of the same issues regarding formula retail were raised. i did do a site visit with the senior building inspector. we measured the site, and it does comply with the size requirements. it is less than 4000 sweet and does not require a conditional use authorization. it was still disputed by the appellant, the claim that a corridor/storage area that is not in use by chase bank, that is not least by chase bank should count toward their use size, which we disagree. the board sided with the department and of how the decision. the building permit was issued. we would like to highlight the last time we had discussed this issue about financial-services, noting that financial services are not covered under formula retail uses, and the commission had requested a hearing on formula retail overall to see how the program is going, and i think we're going to try to bring that to you in the middle of july in association with legislation by supervisor mar that would deal with pet food stores and t

the item was forwarded to the full board without recommendation. also before the committee was an ordinance for parking in soma and mission bay. planning commission considered the proposed ordinance on april 28. the legislation would revise land use, parking, and street- fighting controls to conform with our more contemporary policies. at the hearing, the commission voted to recommend approval of modifications. they recommended a host of changes, largely to ensure the legislation originally sponsored by supervisor daly has taken into account the many ordinances that have amended the sections in such a short time. also agree with the intent to remove the mission bay from this potential ordinance. supervisor kim inc. all of your recommendations and made some minor adjustments this week. the item was continued for one week for what will likely be the final hearing at committee to hear it as it was amended. moving on to tuesday at the full board, they heard the north beach library appeal and associated approvals. the commission approved the library and

. >> ok, i went to call this meeting of the ad hoc board of education for june 13, 2011, to order, and if you could notes that the three members of the committee are present, commissioner of fewer, commissioner norton. we have four informational items on the agenda, and so, we are going to -- how do you want to do this? do you want to do of for you are short or three short presentations? do you want to do them all at the beginning? do you want to do that? >> yes, i think that would be great, commissioner. commissioner: ok. >> i have copies for the public, an idea of some eight copies. so the focus tonight, we wanted to give the board an update on the approach we are going to take to revise the attendance areas as well as the timeline and provide some feedback to a couple of elements of the feeder patterns that were raised at prior meetings, particular transportation, and the order of the tiebreaker process, and then to talk about the monitoring of student assignment, just giving an overview of the scope of work that the advisers are helping us with and see of the board has any specific

-- to show the board's support for the stabilization policy. if the chair allows, i would love the chair of the task force to speak of the process from his perspective, so you can hear more about the membership that has been involved. this has been a long discussion over a long time, with input from the community. this is a policy i support. that is why we brought this policy forward. chairperson mar: can i just explained, to those of us who do not know the boundaries of the area -- it looks like mission street to brian between 13 -- to bryan between 13th and 7th street. it is like these two-lot areas connected by -- two-block areas connected by 7th street. >> the policy does exclude large development in areas over 1 acre. -- supervisor kim: this policy does exclude large development in areas over one acre. we are only asking for a half of the below market rate development. i do not know if you would allow the chair of the task force to speak. chairperson mar: without objection. mr. meko? >> good afternoon, jim meko, chair of the task force. th

and the board discussions as needed, i would like to remind the board that we can bring this back to the committee as a whole. or the ad hoc committee meeting. we know this has been a dance presentation, a lot to consider. that will be below the second reading and action. we want to thank you for your attention and we look forward answering any questions you may have. >> we are going to hold off on the questions item battue1 -- and go back to item 1 on the agenda. thank you to staff, pac and pps for waiting. come on down. oh, ok. we'll wait, don't worry. see that in your packet right behind the agenda is the document from pac and pps. please. >> good evening, commissioners, superintendent, members of the community. my name is ellie rossiter, i'm a parent of children and mira loma and james glick. >> hello. [speaking foreign language] >> good evening, board members. i am representing pac, the parent advisory council. >> [speaking foreign language] >> i have two children attending school. one is in 2nd grand the other is i -- grade, the other is in 4th grade. >> i'm chair of the pac thi

i would ask the board not to change the composition of the board. in law enforcement, sometimes your career is cut short. that was my case. when is, you rely on the board as far as what benefits we were going to be entitled to. if the board has changed and the benefits are changed, we are denied it basically what we were told, that we would receive for the rest of our life. it seems not fair or just. >> my name is louis scott, and the immediate past president. i come here as an individual, not as an officer. a mark of humanity of an individual is care for the vulnerable. i think the market of humanity of our city is also care for the vulnerable. as put together, this 260 page measure has snakes army of the most vulnerable and modest income retirees. these are people like teachers, accountants, professionals, technical engineers, many of the miscellaneous retired employees. these are the same kind of clause that shot down the measure last year. another snake is that we don't have a transparent and open government process. who could even understand th

angela calvillo the clerk of the board. as you recall in january, the committee directed me to repair a budget that provide for the five core functions in the budget, to maintain records both curn and historical to provide access to the record to the public, provide for the administration and operations necessary. to support the board and its official duty including legislative and analyst services. in addition the board has described other responsibilities to our department which require budgetary and administrative resources such as the assessment appeals board, the youth commission, the sunshine ordinance task force, and the clerking of the revenue bond oversight committee. please neat while the proposed budget necessary states necessary funds resources for these core service area, we have recognized the city's financial constraints and included cost savings where savings would not negatively impact the public these services. now to the details. thank you sfgtv. i've included a six-slide power point in the online packet.

the board can condition approval of that contract. they cannot force the developer to address those -- to accept the changes. it would require that the developer consent to change the contract, ultimately. the question is are the changes being proposed something the developer would accept. if not, the board could pass a resolution approving an agreement that never enters into. supervisor avalos: since the developer has already accepted that agreement -- >> the developer discussed the changes introduced by president chiu and agreed to those. supervisor avalos: and on the tenants side, they do not have a say? >> we are entering into an agreement with the developer, not the tenants. supervisor avalos: that is some catch-22. supervisor campos: let me first of all respond to supervisor elsbernd. that is one of the fun things about having all of these lawyers on this board. for me, in terms of deciding the level of risk or uncertainty that one is willing to take, we have to listen to the tenants to have been exposed to that risk. we have hea

. >> the next week in december, the board met again for the last in the meeting of the board. still without a mayor selected or even nominations made. time was running out on the current board, but december 14 seemed like a rerun of december 7, with supervisor maxwell again making a motion to continue to the last board meeting in early january. >> colleagues, i ask that we continue this item. i think we have three weeks to have somebody floating out there for that amount of time is not going to be to our best interest. it will give us an opportunity to really think about, in the next few weeks, what is ahead of us. it allows the board to step back and take a breath and wait this heavy decision that we were just about ready to make. >> there was no one lined up. that was one of the most fascinating and frustrating things about the process. no one knew what was going to happen. everyone was asking. it was amazing. do you know what is going on, do you know who has the upper hand? >> after the holidays, and jerry brown was sworn in as cal.'s next governor. but the tenant gov. elect

commissioner mendoza: any questions or comments from the board? needless to say, ruth, we really do appreciate the work you and parents of public schools have put in to helping us identify the challenges and successes we've had around student assignments so your work is really appreciated. and we do all hope that this will be coming to the tail end before we start going into evaluations. if there aren't further questions, we'll move to the -- to item -- excuse me -- i guess it's item l, the appointment of three members to the san francisco board of education parent advisory council so the recommendation is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district appoint to the parent advisory council three regular members to serve from july 2011 to june 2013. the members recommended for appointment are scott falcon, miranda martin and gloria molt. a recommendation and a second? thank you. a reading by the -- beyond what i've already read? o.k. so what i read will go into record. and then i don't have any public speakers at this time

i asked the board to comply with rules. nonetheless, you conducted the may 18 meeting without regard to the charter, specifically article 5 of article 0. the conduct of the board, regarding discussion of items on the meeting agenda. san francisco charterer item # 5, rules and regulations stipulate each member president -- present. the city and county of sandford cisco board of appeals rules of board of a field -- san francisco board of appeals stipulates at the discretion of the president, except with a starter, other rules to provide required procedure, meeting shall be conducted rules of order. the board has conducted meetings not in conformance with the rules of order. i am bringing this to the attention of the board and requesting it comply with the san francisco charterer and the city board of appeals rules of the board of appeals when conducting its meeting. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move on to commissioner's comments and questions. item number three, for your cons